Post on 16-Oct-2021
RAMANATH JHA
MAY 2019
ISSUE NO. 293
ABSTRACT India’s built heritage—rich and diverse, an amalgamation of the country’s
multi-millennial interactions with different cultures—is managed by governmental
agencies at the national, state and local levels. These bodies have their respective
mandates in protecting and preserving the country’s ancient monuments and other
structures of historical value. At the same time, India faces a host of natural disasters
that pose a multitude of hazards to these structures. This brief argues for the
incorporation of heritage conservation in the country’s disaster management
framework. It calls for innovative mechanisms to fund both, heritage protection and
post-disaster rehabilitation.
(This brief is part of ORF's series, 'Urbanisation and its Discontents'. Find other research in the series here:
https://www.orfonline.org/series/urbanisation-and-its-discontents/)
Observer Research Foundation (ORF) is a public policy think tank that aims to influence the formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India. ORF pursues these goals by providing informed analyses and in-depth research, and organising events that serve as platforms for stimulating and productive discussions.
ISBN 978-93-89094-20-6
© 2019 Observer Research Foundation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, archived, retained or transmitted through print, speech or electronic media without prior written approval from ORF.
Attribution: Ramanath Jha, “Protecting India’s Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters”, ORF Issue Brief No. 293, May 2019, Observer Research Foundation.
Protecting India’s Built HeritageAgainst Natural Disasters
2 ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
INTRODUCTION
India is an ancient civilisation and one of the
richest nations in terms of cultural heritage—
or those physical artifacts and intangible
legacies that are inherited from the past and
which remain highly significant to generations
of the present and the future. Indeed, India’s
heritage can be described as multi-millennial
in age, oceanic in size, and rainbow-like in
variety. After all, the ‘India’ as we know it
today is a result of thousands of years of
assimilating diverse cultures.
This richness is visible in both the tangible
heritage—monuments and other structures
of historical value—and the intangible
heritage comprising language, music and
dance, amongst many other practices and
customs. By their very nature, these physical
and intangible artifacts of heritage belong to
every Indian and, by extension, all of
humanity. Unfortunately, India’s built
heritage is under constant threat from the
various natural disasters that visit the country
every year. Even as the protection of India’s
heritage is covered by various laws, there is
much scope for improvement in terms of
heritage conservation. This brief calls for the
integration of the country’s heritage
conservation framework with that of disaster
management.
The objective of this article is to examine
issues of conservation in the event of a
disaster. These include the question of how to
conserve, how much to conserve and how to
finance conservation. The brief also focuses on
the additionalities that need to be factored in
from the point of view of protecting urban
heritage from disasters. In view of the
significance of heritage in a nation’s life, it is
critical to have a strategy in place that deals
specifically with what needs to be done to
preserve heritage in the event of a disaster.
India’s built heritage are well-protected by
Article 49 of the Constitution: “It shall be the
obligation of the State to protect every
monument or place or object of artistic or
historic interest, (declared by or under law
made by Parliament) to be of national
importance, from spoilation, disfigurement,
destruction, removal, disposal or export, as 1the case may be.” Further, Article 51 A (f)
states: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of
India to value and preserve the rich heritage of
our composite culture; and (g) to protect and
improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have 2compassion for living creatures.”
The country’s earliest heritage laws were
the Bengal Regulation XIX of 1810 and the
Madras Regulation VII of 1817. In 1863 Act XX
was passed, empowering the government to
conserve structures of historical or
architectural value. Later, the Ancient
Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 allowed
government authority over privately owned
heritage structures. The Antiquities Export
Control Act, 1947 and Rules was passed more
than four decades later to regulate the export
of antiquities. In 1951, the Ancient and
Historical Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains (Declaration of National
Importance) Act replaced the Ancient
Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 and later
was supplanted by the Ancient Monuments
and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act
INDIA’S HERITAGE LAWS: A TIMELINE
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
3ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
1958. The latter provided for the preservation
of ancient and historical monuments and
archaeological sites and remains of national
i m p o r t a n c e , f o r t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f
archaeological excavations, and for the
protection of sculptures, carvings and other
like objects.
An amendment in 2010 provided for the
constitution of the National Monument
Authority charged with the grading and
classifying of protected monuments and
areas. The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act
1972 was enacted for effective control over the
moveable cultural property consisting of
antiquities and art treasures. This Act repealed
the 1947 Act. India’s commitment to heritage
was further emphasised when it became a
signatory to UNESCO’s World Heritage
Convention for the protection of global and
national heritage.
A number of state heritage laws have also
been enacted in independent India. For
instance, the Ancient and Historical
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and
Remains Preservation Act, 1956 of Uttar
Pradesh provides for the “preservation of
ancient and historical monuments and
archaeological sites and remains in (the state)
other than those declared by Parliament by
law to be of national importance”. In West
Bengal, the Heritage Commission Act, 2001
provides “for the establishment of a Heritage
Commission in the State of West Bengal for
the purpose of identifying heritage buildings,
monuments, precincts and sites and for
measures for their restoration and
preservation”. Other similar laws are the
Tamil Nadu Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1966;
the Hampi World Heritage Area Management
Authority Act, 2002; the Orissa Ancient
Monuments and Preservation Act, 1956; the
Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites
and Antiquities Act, 1961; and the Madhya
P r a d e s h A n c i e n t M o n u m e n t s a n d
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964.
At the central level, nationally protected
monuments fall under the jurisdiction of the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). It
functions under the Ministry of Culture and is
responsible for archaeological research and
conservation and preservation of around
3,650 monuments categorised as “national
heritage”. It administers these under the
AMASR Act. The Directorate of State
Archaeology and Museums looks after state-
protected monuments. Besides heritage
conservation, the directorates conduct
excavation and exploration within the state,
and they organise exhibitions, workshops and
seminars. In addition, many cities put in their
own effort towards protecting urban heritage
by declaring a City List of such heritage items
that are of local significance and are
administered by the local government.
Mumbai, for instance, was the first city to
come up with such a list in the mid-1990s.
These laws and regulations, however, have
no specific reference to disasters where
heritage sites are involved. This is
unfortunate, given that the importance of
preserving a country’s built heritage cannot
be overemphasised. There is no dearth of
examples in other parts of the world of how the
subject of conservation of heritage should be
taken seriously. A nation’s heritage, after all,
bestows upon its people both identity, and
pride in their past; it connects the past
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
4 ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
generations to the present and the future. For
India, too—home to a multitude of faiths and
cultures—the celebration of the country’s
cultural diversity is a means of building
solidarity.
Kenya, for example, puts a value to its
wildlife. In one national park, the Masai Mara
National Reserve, each lion is worth US
$27,000 per year, and each elephant herd, US
$610,000; these calculations are based on
visitor revenues per year. Moreover, each
hectare of the park is estimated to yield US $40
per year, which is 50 times more than the net
profits expected from the land if it were to be 3
used for agricultural purposes. In the US, it
has been found that visitors to historic sites
and others of cultural value tend to spend
more and stay longer than other types of 4travellers. Several US cities, in fact, have
begun to invest in “heritage tourism”.
Meanwhile, in Europe and Asia, many cities
have also started to include heritage resources
on their urban regeneration agendas. With the
objective of “valorizing” European cultural
heritage, for instance, an investment of 78
million euros was made by the European Union
in Pompeii, a historical site near Naples in 5 Italy. Similarly, in 2014, the Singapore
Government decided to pump in SD 65 million
over five years to revamp its museums and 6cultural institutions.
India is amongst the countries in the world
with the highest risk of natural disasters,
ranking third in the number of disaster events,
second in the number of disaster victims, and
fifth in economic damage on account of 7
natural disasters. These disasters are in the
INDIA’S DISASTER RISKS
form of earthquakes, fires, floods, cyclones
and drought. In recent years, climate change
has only increased the risk of disasters.
These many forms of disasters put India’s
built heritage at serious risk. Earthquakes,
floods, and tsunamis threaten serious damage
to monuments and other historical structures.
In the Gujarat earthquake of 2001, officials
reported that 21 federally registered
monuments across Kutch were destroyed. th
These included temples dating back to the 8 thand 9 centuries. The 123-year-old museum in
the flattened town of Bhuj was reduced to 8rubble.
India is not alone here. In 2011, for
instance, an earthquake in Christchurch in
New Zealand destroyed many iconic heritage
buildings in the city. At the end of a full
damage assessment, it became clear that the
costs of rebuilding would not permit many of
them to be restored, leading the prime
minister to remark that after reconstruction, 9
“Christchurch will be a very different city.” On
25 April 2015, Nepal’s capital Kathmandu, a
“city of temples”, was reduced to a “city of
tents” following a massive earthquake. The
valley surrounding Kathmandu is a designated
UNESCO World Heritage site, known for its
historic monuments, temples, and stupas.
Many of these iconic sites were affected by the
quake. For instance, Bhaktapur’s Durbar
Square, a medieval township, was severely 10
damaged by the earthquake. Following the
disaster, restoration and reconstruction was
long and arduous, and gaps in heritage
strategies were noticed that adversely 11
impacted restoration.
There are also the additional risks of
manmade disasters that may occur because of
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
5ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
neglect and indifference. A case in point is the
adverse impact on the foundations of the Taj 12
Mahal by the polluted Yamuna river.
Historically, disaster management in India was
viewed from the lens of rescue, relief and
rehabilitation. Over the years, there was a shift
in focus to prevention, and in 2009 the
Government of India issued a comprehensive
National Disaster Management Framework
that combines pre-disaster aspects of
prevention, mitigation and preparedness along
with post-disaster issues of response, recovery
and reconstruction. The disaster management
framework is headed by the National Disaster 13Management Authority, and includes
components that are administered by states,
districts and local governments.
However, heritage conservation remains
absent from the country’s disaster
management framework. Disaster managers
have traditionally accorded low priority to the
protection of heritage places. In the event of a
disaster striking a heritage area, personnel
from the disaster agency cordon off the site
and prevent the entry of unauthorised 14
persons. Heritage personnel, therefore, are
also barred from entering the disaster site,
even if it involved a heritage structure.
The imperative is to integrate the
rehabilitation of the heritage structure in
Disaster Management (DM) at the national
and local levels. This should be done in a
manner that does not impact the efforts, for
instance, to save lives and restore normalcy. In
the absence of such integration, heritage
INTEGRATING HERITAGE
PRESERVATION IN DISASTER
MANAGEMENT
structures may get tampered with during any
of the stages of rescue and rehabilitation; it
also becomes difficult to salvage the heritage
structure. Containment and response efforts
put the heritage site at risk, usually due to
ignorance rather than malice on the part of the
disaster manager or the property owners.
S i m u l t a n e o u s l y , D i s a s t e r R i s k
Management (DRM) policies must incorporate
heritage management policies and plans. This
will ensure a more effective approach in which
stakeholders focus on their respective
responsibilities. It is crucial to establish an
enabling legal, policy, institutional, and
operational framework for heritage, and to
outline responsibilities and coordination
protocols for various stakeholders and across
the spectrum of DRM practices—from risk
assessment to preparedness, response, and
recovery. At the same time, greater
coordination between the different
stakeholders, including the private sector and
the local communities, is needed beyond the
period of disaster. Post-disaster recovery is a
sensitive time when additional factors such as
debris removal, theft, misclassification, and
further disaster events can amplify the impact
of the initial disaster.
It would also do well to develop a risk map
that is based on an extensive alphanumeric
and cartographic database of cultural assets.
This risk map should function as the main
reference tool for safeguarding heritage in
times of disasters. In Australia, for instance, a
review of the heritage conservation register,
which formed the basis for protection
measures and funding, found gaps and
inconsistencies in the data. This impacted the
effectiveness of government expenditure. In
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
6 ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
response, in 2006 the National Coordinated
Heritage Agenda identified establishment of 15
data collection standards as a priority project.
Heritage Grading and Documentation
It is important that a proper identification and
grading of heritage sites are done to allow the
determination of value of a structure. Grade I
given to a heritage site, for instance, would
mean that the heritage structure is of great
significance and would brook the least
interference or alteration to the structure.
Grade II buildings would be particularly
important buildings that are especially
interesting, warranting all possible effort to
save them. “Heritage Grade-I richly deserves
careful preservation, Heritage Grade-II 16deserves intelligent preservation”. The older
a building is, and the fewer the surviving
examples of its kind, the more likely it is to
have special interest. Where a building
qualifies for listing primarily on the strength
of its special architectural interest and where a
substantial number of buildings of a similar
type exist, in such cases the policy would be to
list only the most representative or most
significant examples of the type.
Equally crucial is the prioritisation from the
point of view of vulnerability to disaster. It is
only natural that certain sites and structures,
for ‘locational’, ‘material content’ and other
reasons, have greater susceptibility to disaster.
All other strategies, including financial, would
then have to factor in such prioritisation.
Indeed, this is an essential piece of information
that must guide all efforts at precaution.
Additionally, the effort at preventive
HERITAGE CONSERVATION IN DISASTERS:
KEY CHALLENGES
retrofitting of such prioritised structures
would be an important step for heritage
agencies. This would allow mitigation of the
consequences of future failure, more
complicated and costly restoration or complete
helplessness in the face of a structural state of
the heritage site or structure that renders it
beyond repair.
It is also important to undertake adequate
documentation of heritage structures. Such
d o c u m e n t a t i o n s h o u l d i n c l u d e t h e
determination of potential risks to heritage
structures based on their location and other
characteristics. The process would involve the
use three-dimensional (3D) mapping and GIS,
to assist in the documentation of the technical
details of the heritage structures. 3D models,
viewable in a virtual reality environment,
provide detailed and measurable information
about each structure in the event there is
damage that needs to be repaired. A spatial
database can be updated in real time and
improve monitoring and protection of local
heritage and offer the possibility to involve the
members of local communities in heritage
management.
Moreover, information should be available
about the current status of heritage sites and
their analysis in terms of preservation
priorities and material procurement plan in
case they are affected by a disaster. The Swiss
protection programme, for example, includes
detailed maps on which inventoried cultural
properties are located, and which depict
properties in both urban and rural settings.
Skilled Workforce
The restoration of heritage sites that are
damaged by natural disasters, requires highly
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
7ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
skilled personnel to undertake judiciously
planned interventions. The architect who
heads the team should have specialised
knowledge and skills in conservation
architecture. Trained conservation architects
have deep knowledge of the processes and
techniques by which the material, historical,
and design integrity of heritage structures
could be preserved without impairing their
original aesthetics and character. Masons,
artisans and other skilled personnel who are
familiar with heritage protection would have
to be readily available.
It is also important to promote capacity-
building programmes for the citizens who live
in the vicinity of important structures; a
citizenry that is aware, and trained, would be
the frontliners in the event of a disaster.
Financing
Restoration work needs plenty of time and
financial resources. As mentioned earlier,
following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake,
the costs that were calculated for restoring
many of the heavily damaged structures made
little economic sense for the decision-makers.
Indeed, in such a situation where people have
been killed and homes have been destroyed,
heritage structures will not be accorded the
top priority.
In India, to begin with, built heritage is
under-funded by either public or private
sources. Neither are banks and financial
institutions keen in extending loans for the
protection and development of heritage
assets. Banks are wary about putting their
money into heritage projects, as the financial
viability of such projects is not always easy to
establish. “Linkages between heritage
conservation and economic development,
particularly in the context of promoting
tourism, are still being understood, leading
banks to be cautious in funding urban heritage 17conservation projects”.
Heritage properties that are under private
ownership pose a particular problem: as they
are averse to the listing of their properties as
“heritage”, they do not fall under the purview
of government conservation agencies. In
Mumbai, there is an attempt to address such
dissonance through the concept of heritage
TDR (Transfer of Development Rights)
embedded in the Development Control and
Promotion Rules of Mumbai 2034. Under this
provision, heritage property owners are given
the same degree of incentives as those whose
lands are reserved for public amenities under
the Accommodation Reservation policy.
A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e G o v e r n m e n t o f
Maharashtra, in the Heritage Regulations of
Greater Bombay 1995 provided for a Repair
Fund for heritage structures. It stated: “With a
view to give monetary help for such repairs a
separate fund may be created, which would be
kept at the disposal of the Bombay Municipal
Commissioner, who will make disbursement
from the funds in consultation with Heritage
Conservation Committee. Provision of such a
fund may be made through District Planning
and Development Council (DPDC) Budget”.
Unfortunately, however, this regulation has
remained entirely on paper with no revenues 18coming from the DPDC.
The following are some of the potential
sources of funding for the preservation of
India’s built heritage, especially in the context
of natural disasters.
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
�Cess from tourism receipts. Some
heritage sites have the potential to
generate tourism and their upkeep can
help achieve financial viability. Cess from
tourism receipts can be collected and
contributed towards a heritage fund.
Furthermore, in such areas, private sector
involvement in maintenance and
management may be relatively easier to
obtain. The recent case of private-sector
involvement in the management of the
Red Fort in Delhi is an example. While
private participation in this instance is for
regular maintenance of the fort, it also
allows funds to be saved and diverted to
other heritage conservation, including
heritage restoration following disasters.
�Philanthropy. Other heritage sites,
despite their historical or architectural
significance, have little economic
potential, if at all. In such cases,
philanthropy could be a way of finding
financial resources. The ambit of activities
u n d e r C S R ( c o r p o r a t e s o c i a l
responsibility), as well as the funds
available to MPs, MLAs and municipal
corporations, need to be broadened to
include spending on heritage. For example,
the principle of cross-subsidisation is
being used by the Development Plan
Mumbai 2034 by earmarking two markets
to be constructed as “heritage markets”.
Income generated from these markets
would be directed to a separate Heritage
Maintenance account and will be used to
maintain heritage buildings when 19
necessary.
�I n t e r n a t i o n a l d o n o r s a n d
crowdsourcing. It should also be possible
to seek monetary assistance from the 20World Heritage Fund. Citizens could
c o m e f o r w a r d w i t h v o l u n t a r y
contributions of money, skill and
expertise. Other means such as
crowdsourcing could provide handsome
sums of money.
�Insurance. It may be worthwhile to take
out insurance for heritage structures that
are considered as high-priority in terms
of significance and disaster risk.
The Government of India has formulated and
disseminated detailed guidelines for disasters,
as well as sector-wise National Plans of Action
that correspond to such calamities. It is
important that similar guidelines are also
issued with regards to heritage management
during disasters; these guidelines should
incorporate the suggestions made in this
brief. This would assist the formulation of
state and local policies and procedures for
heritage protection and conservation at the
state and local levels. It would also prod the
states and urban local bodies (ULBs) into
carrying out vital documentation of heritage
assets and pre-disaster studies and plans.
These would help inform the proper handling
of heritage sites following a disaster and
enable the proper restoration of damaged
built heritage.
ULBs have a particularly important role in
the entire challenge of incorporating heritage
conservation in disaster management. After
all, India’s built heritage is preponderantly
located in what are now classified as urban
areas. As urbanisation continues, more of the
CONCLUSION
8 ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
9ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
country’s tangible heritage would get covered
within the boundaries of ULBs. These cities
will only continue to grow and become more
dense, making it even more challenging to
protect heritage structures from urban
growth. ULBs, therefore, must be sensitised
with regards to the built heritage under their
jurisdiction and their responsibilities.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ramanath Jha is a Distinguished Fellow at ORF Mumbai.
ENDNOTES
1. The Constitution of India, the Website of the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, accessed 23 April 2019, http://www.legislative.gov.in/ sites/default/files/COI-updated-as-31072018.pdf
2. Ibid.
3. Elizabeth Boo, Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls (Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund,
1990)
4. Travel Industry Association of America (TIA),” Heritage tourism booming in America,” the
website of cabi.org, 15 September 2004, accessed 14 April 2019, https://www.cabi.org/
leisuretourism/news/5543
5. Ylenia Musolino, “Investing in cultural heritage is of essential importance” says Europa Nostra
General Secretary, “ the Website of the European Commission, accessed 25 April 2019,
https://europa.eu/regions-and-cities/news/%E2%80%9Cinvesting-cultural-heritage-
essential-importance%E2%80%9D-says-europa-nostra-general-secretary_en’
6. Hon Jingyi, “Govt to invest S$65 million revamping museums, cultural institutions,” the website
of Today, 12 March 2014, accessed 10 April 2019, https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/
govt-invest-s$65-million-revamping-museums-cultural-institutions
7. D. Guha-Sapir, D. Hargitt and P. Hoyois, Thirty Years of Natural Disasters 1974-2003: The
Numbers (Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2004)
8. Rahul Bedi, “Heritage of centuries destroyed in minutes by Indian earthquake,” The Telegraph,
31 January 2001, accessed 21 April 2019, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/
asia/india/1320478/Heritage-of-centuries-destroyed-in-minutes-by-Indian-earthquake.html
9. “Christchurch earthquake: parts of the city to be abandoned,” The Telegraph, 7 March 2011,
accessed 24 March 2019, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthe
pacific/newzealand/8365688/Christchurch-earthquake-parts-of-city-to-be-abandoned.html
10. “Kathmandu: City of Temples Turned into City of Tents,” the website of Outshine Adventure,
accessed 29 March 2019, https://www.outshineadventure.com/blog/kathmandu-city-of-
temples-turned-into-city-of-tents.html
11. Sabitri Dhakal, “At Bhaktapur Durbar Square today,” The Himalayan Times, 26 February 2017,
accessed 25 March 2019, https://thehimalayantimes.com/kathmandu/bhaktapur-durbar-
square-today/
12. Kusala Rajendran, “A free-flowing Yamuna is critical to the Taj Mahal’s future,” The Hindustan
Times, 6 December 2018, accessed 20 March 2019, https://www.hindustantimes.com/
analysis/a-free-flowing-yamuna-is-critical-to-the-taj-mahal-s-future/story-N0XchAw5AvUh
I4x6C2AS4I.html
13. The website of the National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India, accessed 30
March 2019, https://ndma.gov.in/en/
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
10 ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
14. M. Drdácký, L. Binda, I. Herle, L.G. Lanza, I. Maxwell OBE and S. Pospíšil, Protecting the Cultural
Heritage from natural Disasters (Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies, European
Union, February 2007) accessed 29 March 2019,http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/
etudes/etudes/join/2007/369029/IPOL-CULT_ET(2007)369029_EN.pdf
15. The Cooperative National Heritage Agenda (CHNA), the website of the Department of
Environment and Energy, Australian Government, accessed 24 March 2019
https://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/info/cnha.html
16. Handbook of Conservation of Heritage Buildings (Directorate General, Central Public Works
Department, July 2013).
17. Hari Srinivas, “Financing for Urban Heritage and Conservation,” Policy Analysis Series E-051
(April 2015) accessed 29 March 2019, http://www.gdrc.org/heritage/financing-heritage.html
18. Resolution No. DCR. 1090/3197/RDP/UD-11, Schedule 9: Repair Fund, Heritage Regulations
for Greater Bombay,( Urban Development Department, 21st April 1995)
19. Art, Culture, Recreation & Leisure, Chapter 23, Report on the Draft Development Plan 2034 (May
2016)
20. The World Heritage Fund was established under Art 15 of the World Heritage Convention for the
protection of such natural and cultural heritage of the world that is of outstanding universal
value. The World Heritage Committee decides on its use.
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters
11ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 293 l MAY 2019
20, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110 002, INDIA Ph. : +91-11-35332000 Fax : +91-11-35332005
E-mail: contactus@orfonline.orgWebsite: www.orfonline.org
Protecting India's Built Heritage Against Natural Disasters